Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 18, 2014 | 讻状讙 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讚

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chagigah 10

讘讗讜谞住 讻讗谉 讘专爪讜谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讗讜谞住 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗砖转 讻讛谉 讻讗谉 讘讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇

with a rape, in which case it is not prohibited for the woman to return to her husband. There, it is referring to a woman who had relations willfully, and therefore she is forbidden to her husband. And if you wish, say that this and that are both dealing with a rape, and it is still not difficult. Here, where the transgression cannot be rectified, it is referring to one who raped the wife of a priest, as it is forbidden for a priest to have relations with his wife once she has intercourse with any other man, even unwillingly. There, it is referring to one who raped the wife of an Israelite, in which case there is no prohibition against her returning to her husband.

讜诇讬讜爪讗 讜诇讘讗 讗讬谉 砖诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讻讬讜谉 砖讬讜爪讗 讗讚诐 诪讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 诇讚讘专 诪拽专讗 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖诇讜诐

Since the Gemara mentioned a Torah scholar who abandons the study of Torah, it cites a relevant verse: 鈥淣either was there any peace to him that went out or came in due to the adversary鈥 (Zechariah 8:10). Rav said: Once a person leaves the study of halakha, i.e., Mishna and Gemara, even for the study of the Torah itself, he will no longer have peace. The verses of the Torah are often obscure and it is difficult to learn halakha directly from them without the aid of the interpretations of the Talmud.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讝讛 讛驻讜专砖 诪转诇诪讜讚 诇诪砖谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪转诇诪讜讚 诇转诇诪讜讚

And Shmuel said: This is referring to one who leaves the study of Talmud to learn Mishna. Whereas the reasoning of the Talmud is relatively clear, the Mishna cites legal rulings without explaining their reasoning. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The verse applies even to one who leaves the study of one Talmud for the other Talmud, i.e., who leaves off his study of the Jerusalem Talmud to begin the Babylonian Talmud, as he will encounter difficulties with the new style of learning.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬转专 谞讚专讬诐 驻讜专讞讬谉 讘讗讜讬专 讜讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注诇 诪讛 砖讬住诪讻讜

MISHNA: Incidental to the Festival peace-offering, the mishna describes the nature of various areas of Torah study. The halakhot of the dissolution of vows, when one requests from a Sage to dissolve them, fly in the air and have nothing to support them, as these halakhot are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. There is only a slight allusion to the dissolution of vows in the Torah, which is taught by the Sages as part of the oral tradition.

讛诇讻讜转 砖讘转 讞讙讬讙讜转 讜讛诪注讬诇讜转 讛专讬 讛诐 讻讛专专讬诐 讛转诇讜讬谉 讘砖注专讛 砖讛谉 诪拽专讗 诪讜注讟 讜讛诇讻讜转 诪专讜讘讜转 讛讚讬谞讬谉 讜讛注讘讜讚讜转 讛讟讛专讜转 讜讛讟诪讗讜转 讜注专讬讜转 讬砖 诇讛谉 注诇 诪讛 砖讬住诪讻讜 讜讛谉 讛谉 讙讜驻讬 转讜专讛

The halakhot of Shabbat, Festival peace-offerings, and misuse of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair, as they have little written about them in the Torah, and yet the details of their halakhot are numerous. The details of monetary law, sacrificial rites, ritual purity and impurity, and the halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden all have something to support them, i.e., there is ample basis in the Torah for these halakhot, and these are the essential parts of Torah.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛诐 注诇 诪讛 砖讬住诪讻讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬驻诇讬讗 讻讬 讬驻诇讬讗 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐 讗讞转 讛驻诇讗讛 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讗讞转 讛驻诇讗讛 诇讛讬转专

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: The halakhot of the dissolution of vows have something to support them, as it is stated: 鈥淲hen a man shall clearly utter a vow鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), and: 鈥淲hen either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow鈥 (Numbers 6:2), i.e., the words 鈥渃learly utter鈥 appear twice. One clear utterance is for prohibition, i.e., when one states his intention to accept the vow, and one clear utterance is for dissolution, when he provides the Sage with a reason why the vow should no longer apply. This is an allusion in the Torah to the annulment of vows.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛诐 注诇 诪讛 砖讬住诪讻讜 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 谞砖讘注转讬 讘讗驻讬 讘讗驻讬 谞砖讘注转讬 讜讞讝专转讬 讘讬

Rabbi Yehoshua likewise says: These halakhot have something to support them, as it is stated: 鈥淲herefore I swore in My wrath鈥 (Psalms 95:11), meaning: In my wrath I swore, and I retracted. This is the basis for the dissolution of vows, in which the one who uttered the vow tells the Sage that he regrets it, as he did so in a moment of anger.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛诐 注诇 诪讛 砖讬住诪讻讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 谞讚讬讘 诇讘讜 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛诐 注诇 诪讛 砖讬住诪讻讜 砖谞讗诪专 谞砖讘注转讬 讜讗拽讬讬诪讛 诇砖诪讜专 诪砖驻讟讬 爪讚拽讱

Rabbi Yitz岣k says: These halakhot have something to support them, as it is stated: 鈥淲hoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it鈥 (Exodus 35:5). This verse indicates that as long as one retains the same desire to fulfill the vow, he must continue to fulfill it, but if he regrets taking the vow he may arrange for it to be dissolved. 岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 brother, also says: They have something to support them, as it is stated: 鈥淚 have sworn, and have fulfilled it, to observe your righteous ordinances鈥 (Psalms 119:106). This verse indicates that certain oaths need not be fulfilled, i.e., those that have been dissolved.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 讚讬讚讬 注讚讬驻讗 诪讚讬讚讻讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讜讞诇 讗讘诇 讗讞专讬诐 诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗 诇讘专 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If I had been there, sitting with those Sages, I would have said to them: My source is better than yours, as it is stated: 鈥淗e shall not nullify his word鈥 (Numbers 30:3), from which it may be inferred: He himself cannot nullify his word; however, others, i.e., a Sage, may nullify it for him by dissolving his vow. Rava said: For all of the suggested sources for the dissolution of vows there is a possible refutation, except for that of Shmuel, for which there is no refutation.

讚讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诇诪讗 讻讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 谞讝讬专 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讛驻诇讗讛

Rava elaborates. As, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, perhaps the phrase: 鈥淐learly utter鈥 should be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said an alternative interpretation in the name of Rabbi Tarfon. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to two people who are arguing whether or not someone who passed before them is a nazirite, each of them declaring that if he is correct he himself will become a nazirite, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: Actually, neither of them is a nazirite, as naziriteship is effected only by means of a clear utterance and neither party is certain they will be a nazirite at the time of their utterance. He derives this halakha from this phrase: 鈥淐learly utter.鈥

讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讗驻讬 谞砖讘注转讬 讜诇讗 讛讚专谞讗 讘讬 讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚诇诪讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙诪专 讘诇讘讜 爪专讬讱 砖讬讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜

Similarly, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, perhaps this is what the verse is saying: In my wrath I swore and I do not take it back, despite the fact that it was stated in a moment of anger. If it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, perhaps the phrase 鈥渁 willing heart鈥 comes to exclude the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: If one decided in his heart but did not verbalize a vow, it is insufficient, as he must verbally express it. And therefore this phrase teaches us that even though he did not verbally express the vow he is still obligated to fulfill it.

讗讬 诪讚讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚诇诪讗 讻专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 砖谞砖讘注讬谉 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 讛诪爪讜讛 砖谞讗诪专 谞砖讘注转讬 讜讗拽讬讬诪讛 诇砖诪讜专 诪砖驻讟讬 爪讚拽讱

Finally, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi 岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 brother, perhaps the phrase 鈥渁nd fulfilled it鈥 should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Giddel, who said that Rav said a different interpretation of this verse. As Rav Giddel said that Rav said: From where is it derived that although one is already obligated to fulfill all mitzvot one may take an oath to fulfill a mitzva, and this is not considered an oath taken in vain? As it is stated: 鈥淚 have sworn, and have fulfilled it, to observe Your righteous ordinances鈥 (Psalms 119:106).

讗诇讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讟讘讗 讞讚讗 驻诇驻诇转讗 讞专讬驻转讗 诪诪诇讬 爪谞讗 讚拽专讬

Rav concludes. However, for Shmuel鈥檚 source there is no refutation. Rava said, and some say it was Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k who said: This explains the folk saying that people say: One spicy pepper is better than a basketful of squash, as the single pepper has more flavor than all the squash combined.

讛诇讻讜转 砖讘转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讞讜驻专 讙讜诪讗 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诇注驻专讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

搂 The mishna stated that the halakhot of Shabbat are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But the halakhot of Shabbat are written, i.e., the prohibition against performing labor is explicit in the Torah. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to say this in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba. As Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a hole on Shabbat only because he needs its dirt and not for the hole itself is exempt from liability for that act, as this is not the labor of digging prohibited on Shabbat by Torah law.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Abba issue this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One who performs on Shabbat a labor that is not necessary for its own sake, i.e., he performs the labor for a purpose other than the direct result of the action, is exempt from liability for it.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 诪转拽谉 讛讻讗 诪拽诇拽诇 讛讜讗

The Gemara offers an alternative possibility. This ruling can be explained even if you say that Rabbi Abba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that one is liable for a labor that is not necessary for its own sake. There, in other cases, Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable because his purpose is creative. Here, where one is digging the hole for the dirt, the purpose is destructive, as the action damages the ground. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that in this case he is exempt.

诪讗讬 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛

The Gemara returns to the mishna. What then does the mishna mean by the phrase: Like mountains suspended by a hair?

诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讜诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 诇讗 讻转讬讘讗

The Gemara answers: The Torah prohibited only planned, creative labor on Shabbat. An act of labor that is not intended, or whose result is unintended, or whose consequence is destructive, is not included in this category. Therefore, one who performs labor in this manner is exempt. And limitation of the prohibition against creative labor is not written anywhere in the Torah with regard to the laws of Shabbat. Admittedly, this principle is written in connection with the Tabernacle, and there is an established exegetical link between the building of the Tabernacle and Shabbat. Nevertheless, as this fundamental principle concerning the halakhot of Shabbat does not appear explicitly, it is compared to mountains suspended by a hair.

讞讙讬讙讜转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讜讞讙讜转诐 讗讜转讜 讞讙 诇讛壮 讝讘讬讞讛 讚诇诪讗 讞讜讙讜 讞讙讗 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

搂 The mishna taught that the halakhot of Festival peace-offerings are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But they are written in the Torah. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to say this in accordance with that which Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where is it derived that this verse: 鈥淎nd you shall celebrate it as a Festival [ve岣gotem] to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:41), is referring to an animal offering? Perhaps the Merciful One is simply saying: Celebrate a Festival.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讞讜讙讜 诇讬 讘诪讚讘专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讞讜讙讜 讞讙讗 讛讜讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 诪砖讛 讙诐 讗转讛 转转谉 讘讬讚讬谞讜 讝讘讞讬诐 讜注讜诇讜转

Abaye responded: However, if that is so, consider that it is written: 鈥淟et My people go, that they may hold a feast [veya岣gu] to Me in the wilderness鈥 (Exodus 5:1). So too, the meaning of this verse is that they will merely celebrate a Festival, and not bring an offering. And if you would say that is indeed so, that this means that they should celebrate a Festival, but isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt-offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God鈥 (Exodus 10:25)? This shows that the command is referring to offerings.

讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讻诇讜 讜砖转讜 讜讞讜讙讜 讞讙讗 拽诪讗讬 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讬诇讬谉 讞诇讘 讞讙讬 注讚 讘拽专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讞讜讙讗 讛讜讗 转专讘讗 诇讞讙讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But perhaps this is what the Merciful One said: Slaughter animals so that you can eat, drink, and celebrate a Festival before Me, but no offerings are necessary. The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written: 鈥淭he fat of My Festival feast [岣gi] shall not remain all night until the morning鈥 (Exodus 23:18). And if it enters your mind to say that it is referring to a regular Festival feast and not an offering, does a Festival feast have forbidden fats?

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讞诇讘 讛讘讗 讘讝诪谉 讞讙 诇讗 讬诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One states in the Torah: The fats of gift offerings that are brought during a Festival may not remain all night. If so, the phrase 鈥淢y Festival feast鈥 is not referring to a type of offering at all, but to a particular time.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讘讗 讘讝诪谉 讞讙 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬诇讬谉 讛讗 讚讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讻讜诇讛 讬诇讬谉 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 注讚 讛讘拽专 讻转讬讘

The Gemara answers: However, if that is so, this verse indicates that it is only those fats that are brought during a Festival that may not remain overnight. It may be inferred from here that fats which are brought throughout the year may remain all night. But it is written about burnt-offerings: 鈥淥n its firewood upon the altar all night into the morning鈥 (Leviticus 6:2). This shows that burnt-offerings must burn upon the altar all night.

讚诇诪讗 讗讬 诪讛讛讜讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讛讜讗 诇注砖讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗讬 诇诇讗讜

The Gemara further asks: Perhaps if this halakha was derived from that verse, I would say that verse serves as the source of a positive mitzva. Therefore, the Merciful One writes this verse: 鈥淪hall not remain all night,鈥 as a prohibition as well.

诇诇讗讜 讻转讘 拽专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜诇讗 讬诇讬谉 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讗砖专 转讝讘讞 讘注专讘 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讘拽专 讜讚诇诪讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜注砖讛

The Gemara responds. With regard to the prohibition against leaving over an offering on a Festival, another verse was written: 鈥淣either shall any of the flesh, which you sacrifice the first day at evening, remain all night until the morning鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:4). The Gemara asks: But perhaps the verse: 鈥淪hall not remain all night鈥 comes to teach that one who does so violates two prohibitions and a positive mitzva.

讗诇讗 讗转讬讗 诪讚讘专 诪讚讘专 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讬讞讜讙讜 诇讬 讘诪讚讘专 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讜诪谞讞讛 讛讙砖转诐 诇讬 讘诪讚讘专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讝讘讞讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讝讘讞讬诐

Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the claim that the source for a Festival peace-offering comes from a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渨ilderness鈥 stated here and the term: 鈥渨ilderness鈥 stated elsewhere. It is written here: 鈥淭hey shall make an offering to Me in the wilderness鈥 (Exodus聽5:1), and it is written there: 鈥淒id you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the wilderness, house of Israel?鈥 (Amos 5:25). Just as there it is referring to actual animal offerings, so too here, it is referring to animal offerings, not merely the celebration of a Festival.

讜诪讗讬 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪讚讘专讬 拽讘诇讛 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And in light of this verbal analogy, in what way is this halakha like mountains suspended by a hair? The Gemara answers: The textual evidence is not that strong, as generally one does not derive Torah matters from texts of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings. Since the prophets were not permitted to introduce new halakhot, as the Torah is the only authoritative source in that regard, this verbal analogy does not carry the same weight as a halakha derived from the Torah itself.

诪注讬诇讜转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讻讚转谞谉 讛砖诇讬讞 砖注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪注诇 诇讗 注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 砖诇讬讞 诪注诇

搂 The mishna taught that the details of the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But they are written in the Torah (Leviticus 5:14鈥16). Rami bar 岣ma said: This statement is necessary only for that which we learned in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 20a): With regard to an agent who performs his agency, e.g., when a homeowner sends someone to buy an object with consecrated money and the agent does as he was instructed, the homeowner has misused consecrated property and must bring an offering for the actions of the agent performed on his behalf. However, if the agent did not perform his agency, but in some way acted on his own account, the agent has misused consecrated property, and he is the one obligated to bring the offering.

讜讻讬 注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讗诪讗讬 诪注诇 讜讻讬 讝讛 讞讜讟讗 讜讝讛 诪转讞讬讬讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛

The Gemara explains: And when he performed his agency, why is the owner considered to have misused consecrated property? And is it possible that this one sins and that one is rendered liable? Since this halakha is counterintuitive, it is not apparent from the verses. This is what the mishna was referring to when it said that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诪注讬诇讛 讚讬诇驻讗 讞讟讗 讞讟讗 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 讛转诐 砖诇讜讞讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讻诪讜转讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇讜讞讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讻诪讜转讜

Rava said: And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps the transgression of misuse of consecrated property is different, as it is derived through a verbal analogy from the parallel term 鈥渟in鈥 (Leviticus 5:6) and 鈥渟in鈥 (Numbers 18:9), from the case of teruma: Just as there, with regard to teruma, the legal status of a person鈥檚 agent is like that of himself, and therefore the agent may separate teruma on behalf of the owner of the produce, so too here, with regard to misuse of consecrated property, the legal status of a person鈥檚 agent is like that of himself, which means that when the agent properly performs his agency the owner is liable.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 谞讝讻专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诇讗 谞讝讻专 砖诇讬讞 砖诇讬讞 诪注诇 砖诇讬讞 注谞讬讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛

Rather, Rava said: The mishna鈥檚 statement with regard to mountains is necessary only for that which is taught in a baraita: If, after he sent an agent to use a consecrated object, the homeowner remembered that it was a consecrated item and the agent did not remember, the agent has misused consecrated property despite the fact that he was merely performing his agency. This is because one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property only if he acted unwittingly. In this instance, what did the poor agent do? He simply performed his agency on behalf of the owner, and yet because the owner remembered about the consecrated object, the agent is liable. This is what the mishna is referring to when it says that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讜爪讬讗 诪注讜转 讛拽讚砖 诇讞讜诇讬谉

Rav Ashi said: And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps this is just as it is with regard to one who spends consecrated money for non-sacred purposes. Although this individual did not know that the money was consecrated, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering. Here too, once the owner canceled the agency upon realizing the money was consecrated, the agent unwittingly misused consecrated property, and therefore he is liable.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讻讚转谞谉 谞讟诇 讗讘谉 讗讜 拽讜专讛 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 诪注诇 谞转谞讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 诪注诇 讜讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 诪注诇 诪讻讚讬 诪讬砖拽诇 砖拽诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诇讬 讞讘讬专讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛

Rather, Rav Ashi said: The mishna is necessary only for that which we learned in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 19b): If one picked up a consecrated stone or beam, he has not misused consecrated property merely by this action. However, if he gave it to another, he has misused consecrated property and the other person has not misused consecrated property. The Gemara analyzes this case: Since he picked it up, what difference is there to me if he keeps it, and what difference is there to me if he gives it to another? What is the basis for the distinction between the two cases? Rather, this is the case the mishna is referring to when it says that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty. What is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps it should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Here, this mishna is not referring to an ordinary person who picked up a consecrated stone for himself.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Chagigah: 7-13- Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 3 sacrifices that must be brought when coming to Jerusalem for the Festival...
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 10: When the Oral Law Is Hanging by a Thread

A range of mitzvot, beginning with hatarat nedarim, that the mishnah claims are not well sourced in the text of...

Chagigah 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 10

讘讗讜谞住 讻讗谉 讘专爪讜谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讗讜谞住 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗砖转 讻讛谉 讻讗谉 讘讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇

with a rape, in which case it is not prohibited for the woman to return to her husband. There, it is referring to a woman who had relations willfully, and therefore she is forbidden to her husband. And if you wish, say that this and that are both dealing with a rape, and it is still not difficult. Here, where the transgression cannot be rectified, it is referring to one who raped the wife of a priest, as it is forbidden for a priest to have relations with his wife once she has intercourse with any other man, even unwillingly. There, it is referring to one who raped the wife of an Israelite, in which case there is no prohibition against her returning to her husband.

讜诇讬讜爪讗 讜诇讘讗 讗讬谉 砖诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讻讬讜谉 砖讬讜爪讗 讗讚诐 诪讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 诇讚讘专 诪拽专讗 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讜 砖诇讜诐

Since the Gemara mentioned a Torah scholar who abandons the study of Torah, it cites a relevant verse: 鈥淣either was there any peace to him that went out or came in due to the adversary鈥 (Zechariah 8:10). Rav said: Once a person leaves the study of halakha, i.e., Mishna and Gemara, even for the study of the Torah itself, he will no longer have peace. The verses of the Torah are often obscure and it is difficult to learn halakha directly from them without the aid of the interpretations of the Talmud.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讝讛 讛驻讜专砖 诪转诇诪讜讚 诇诪砖谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪转诇诪讜讚 诇转诇诪讜讚

And Shmuel said: This is referring to one who leaves the study of Talmud to learn Mishna. Whereas the reasoning of the Talmud is relatively clear, the Mishna cites legal rulings without explaining their reasoning. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The verse applies even to one who leaves the study of one Talmud for the other Talmud, i.e., who leaves off his study of the Jerusalem Talmud to begin the Babylonian Talmud, as he will encounter difficulties with the new style of learning.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讬转专 谞讚专讬诐 驻讜专讞讬谉 讘讗讜讬专 讜讗讬谉 诇讛诐 注诇 诪讛 砖讬住诪讻讜

MISHNA: Incidental to the Festival peace-offering, the mishna describes the nature of various areas of Torah study. The halakhot of the dissolution of vows, when one requests from a Sage to dissolve them, fly in the air and have nothing to support them, as these halakhot are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. There is only a slight allusion to the dissolution of vows in the Torah, which is taught by the Sages as part of the oral tradition.

讛诇讻讜转 砖讘转 讞讙讬讙讜转 讜讛诪注讬诇讜转 讛专讬 讛诐 讻讛专专讬诐 讛转诇讜讬谉 讘砖注专讛 砖讛谉 诪拽专讗 诪讜注讟 讜讛诇讻讜转 诪专讜讘讜转 讛讚讬谞讬谉 讜讛注讘讜讚讜转 讛讟讛专讜转 讜讛讟诪讗讜转 讜注专讬讜转 讬砖 诇讛谉 注诇 诪讛 砖讬住诪讻讜 讜讛谉 讛谉 讙讜驻讬 转讜专讛

The halakhot of Shabbat, Festival peace-offerings, and misuse of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair, as they have little written about them in the Torah, and yet the details of their halakhot are numerous. The details of monetary law, sacrificial rites, ritual purity and impurity, and the halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden all have something to support them, i.e., there is ample basis in the Torah for these halakhot, and these are the essential parts of Torah.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛诐 注诇 诪讛 砖讬住诪讻讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬驻诇讬讗 讻讬 讬驻诇讬讗 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐 讗讞转 讛驻诇讗讛 诇讗讬住讜专 讜讗讞转 讛驻诇讗讛 诇讛讬转专

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: The halakhot of the dissolution of vows have something to support them, as it is stated: 鈥淲hen a man shall clearly utter a vow鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), and: 鈥淲hen either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow鈥 (Numbers 6:2), i.e., the words 鈥渃learly utter鈥 appear twice. One clear utterance is for prohibition, i.e., when one states his intention to accept the vow, and one clear utterance is for dissolution, when he provides the Sage with a reason why the vow should no longer apply. This is an allusion in the Torah to the annulment of vows.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛诐 注诇 诪讛 砖讬住诪讻讜 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 谞砖讘注转讬 讘讗驻讬 讘讗驻讬 谞砖讘注转讬 讜讞讝专转讬 讘讬

Rabbi Yehoshua likewise says: These halakhot have something to support them, as it is stated: 鈥淲herefore I swore in My wrath鈥 (Psalms 95:11), meaning: In my wrath I swore, and I retracted. This is the basis for the dissolution of vows, in which the one who uttered the vow tells the Sage that he regrets it, as he did so in a moment of anger.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛诐 注诇 诪讛 砖讬住诪讻讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 谞讚讬讘 诇讘讜 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬砖 诇讛诐 注诇 诪讛 砖讬住诪讻讜 砖谞讗诪专 谞砖讘注转讬 讜讗拽讬讬诪讛 诇砖诪讜专 诪砖驻讟讬 爪讚拽讱

Rabbi Yitz岣k says: These halakhot have something to support them, as it is stated: 鈥淲hoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it鈥 (Exodus 35:5). This verse indicates that as long as one retains the same desire to fulfill the vow, he must continue to fulfill it, but if he regrets taking the vow he may arrange for it to be dissolved. 岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 brother, also says: They have something to support them, as it is stated: 鈥淚 have sworn, and have fulfilled it, to observe your righteous ordinances鈥 (Psalms 119:106). This verse indicates that certain oaths need not be fulfilled, i.e., those that have been dissolved.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 讚讬讚讬 注讚讬驻讗 诪讚讬讚讻讜 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讜讞诇 讗讘诇 讗讞专讬诐 诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗 诇讘专 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If I had been there, sitting with those Sages, I would have said to them: My source is better than yours, as it is stated: 鈥淗e shall not nullify his word鈥 (Numbers 30:3), from which it may be inferred: He himself cannot nullify his word; however, others, i.e., a Sage, may nullify it for him by dissolving his vow. Rava said: For all of the suggested sources for the dissolution of vows there is a possible refutation, except for that of Shmuel, for which there is no refutation.

讚讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚诇诪讗 讻讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 谞讝讬专 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诇讗 诇讛驻诇讗讛

Rava elaborates. As, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, perhaps the phrase: 鈥淐learly utter鈥 should be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said an alternative interpretation in the name of Rabbi Tarfon. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to two people who are arguing whether or not someone who passed before them is a nazirite, each of them declaring that if he is correct he himself will become a nazirite, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: Actually, neither of them is a nazirite, as naziriteship is effected only by means of a clear utterance and neither party is certain they will be a nazirite at the time of their utterance. He derives this halakha from this phrase: 鈥淐learly utter.鈥

讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讗驻讬 谞砖讘注转讬 讜诇讗 讛讚专谞讗 讘讬 讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚诇诪讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讙诪专 讘诇讘讜 爪专讬讱 砖讬讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜爪讬讗 讘砖驻转讬讜

Similarly, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, perhaps this is what the verse is saying: In my wrath I swore and I do not take it back, despite the fact that it was stated in a moment of anger. If it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, perhaps the phrase 鈥渁 willing heart鈥 comes to exclude the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: If one decided in his heart but did not verbalize a vow, it is insufficient, as he must verbally express it. And therefore this phrase teaches us that even though he did not verbally express the vow he is still obligated to fulfill it.

讗讬 诪讚讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚诇诪讗 讻专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬谉 砖谞砖讘注讬谉 诇拽讬讬诐 讗转 讛诪爪讜讛 砖谞讗诪专 谞砖讘注转讬 讜讗拽讬讬诪讛 诇砖诪讜专 诪砖驻讟讬 爪讚拽讱

Finally, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi 岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 brother, perhaps the phrase 鈥渁nd fulfilled it鈥 should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Giddel, who said that Rav said a different interpretation of this verse. As Rav Giddel said that Rav said: From where is it derived that although one is already obligated to fulfill all mitzvot one may take an oath to fulfill a mitzva, and this is not considered an oath taken in vain? As it is stated: 鈥淚 have sworn, and have fulfilled it, to observe Your righteous ordinances鈥 (Psalms 119:106).

讗诇讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讟讘讗 讞讚讗 驻诇驻诇转讗 讞专讬驻转讗 诪诪诇讬 爪谞讗 讚拽专讬

Rav concludes. However, for Shmuel鈥檚 source there is no refutation. Rava said, and some say it was Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k who said: This explains the folk saying that people say: One spicy pepper is better than a basketful of squash, as the single pepper has more flavor than all the squash combined.

讛诇讻讜转 砖讘转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讛讞讜驻专 讙讜诪讗 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讗诇讗 诇注驻专讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

搂 The mishna stated that the halakhot of Shabbat are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But the halakhot of Shabbat are written, i.e., the prohibition against performing labor is explicit in the Torah. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to say this in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba. As Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a hole on Shabbat only because he needs its dirt and not for the hole itself is exempt from liability for that act, as this is not the labor of digging prohibited on Shabbat by Torah law.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诇讙讜驻讛 驻讟讜专 注诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Abba issue this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One who performs on Shabbat a labor that is not necessary for its own sake, i.e., he performs the labor for a purpose other than the direct result of the action, is exempt from liability for it.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 诪转拽谉 讛讻讗 诪拽诇拽诇 讛讜讗

The Gemara offers an alternative possibility. This ruling can be explained even if you say that Rabbi Abba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that one is liable for a labor that is not necessary for its own sake. There, in other cases, Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable because his purpose is creative. Here, where one is digging the hole for the dirt, the purpose is destructive, as the action damages the ground. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that in this case he is exempt.

诪讗讬 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛

The Gemara returns to the mishna. What then does the mishna mean by the phrase: Like mountains suspended by a hair?

诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 讜诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 诇讗 讻转讬讘讗

The Gemara answers: The Torah prohibited only planned, creative labor on Shabbat. An act of labor that is not intended, or whose result is unintended, or whose consequence is destructive, is not included in this category. Therefore, one who performs labor in this manner is exempt. And limitation of the prohibition against creative labor is not written anywhere in the Torah with regard to the laws of Shabbat. Admittedly, this principle is written in connection with the Tabernacle, and there is an established exegetical link between the building of the Tabernacle and Shabbat. Nevertheless, as this fundamental principle concerning the halakhot of Shabbat does not appear explicitly, it is compared to mountains suspended by a hair.

讞讙讬讙讜转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讻讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讜讞讙讜转诐 讗讜转讜 讞讙 诇讛壮 讝讘讬讞讛 讚诇诪讗 讞讜讙讜 讞讙讗 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗

搂 The mishna taught that the halakhot of Festival peace-offerings are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But they are written in the Torah. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to say this in accordance with that which Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where is it derived that this verse: 鈥淎nd you shall celebrate it as a Festival [ve岣gotem] to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:41), is referring to an animal offering? Perhaps the Merciful One is simply saying: Celebrate a Festival.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讞讜讙讜 诇讬 讘诪讚讘专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讞讜讙讜 讞讙讗 讛讜讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 诪砖讛 讙诐 讗转讛 转转谉 讘讬讚讬谞讜 讝讘讞讬诐 讜注讜诇讜转

Abaye responded: However, if that is so, consider that it is written: 鈥淟et My people go, that they may hold a feast [veya岣gu] to Me in the wilderness鈥 (Exodus 5:1). So too, the meaning of this verse is that they will merely celebrate a Festival, and not bring an offering. And if you would say that is indeed so, that this means that they should celebrate a Festival, but isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt-offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God鈥 (Exodus 10:25)? This shows that the command is referring to offerings.

讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗讻诇讜 讜砖转讜 讜讞讜讙讜 讞讙讗 拽诪讗讬 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讬诇讬谉 讞诇讘 讞讙讬 注讚 讘拽专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讞讜讙讗 讛讜讗 转专讘讗 诇讞讙讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But perhaps this is what the Merciful One said: Slaughter animals so that you can eat, drink, and celebrate a Festival before Me, but no offerings are necessary. The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written: 鈥淭he fat of My Festival feast [岣gi] shall not remain all night until the morning鈥 (Exodus 23:18). And if it enters your mind to say that it is referring to a regular Festival feast and not an offering, does a Festival feast have forbidden fats?

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讞诇讘 讛讘讗 讘讝诪谉 讞讙 诇讗 讬诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One states in the Torah: The fats of gift offerings that are brought during a Festival may not remain all night. If so, the phrase 鈥淢y Festival feast鈥 is not referring to a type of offering at all, but to a particular time.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讘讗 讘讝诪谉 讞讙 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬诇讬谉 讛讗 讚讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讻讜诇讛 讬诇讬谉 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 注讚 讛讘拽专 讻转讬讘

The Gemara answers: However, if that is so, this verse indicates that it is only those fats that are brought during a Festival that may not remain overnight. It may be inferred from here that fats which are brought throughout the year may remain all night. But it is written about burnt-offerings: 鈥淥n its firewood upon the altar all night into the morning鈥 (Leviticus 6:2). This shows that burnt-offerings must burn upon the altar all night.

讚诇诪讗 讗讬 诪讛讛讜讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讛讜讗 诇注砖讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛讗讬 诇诇讗讜

The Gemara further asks: Perhaps if this halakha was derived from that verse, I would say that verse serves as the source of a positive mitzva. Therefore, the Merciful One writes this verse: 鈥淪hall not remain all night,鈥 as a prohibition as well.

诇诇讗讜 讻转讘 拽专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜诇讗 讬诇讬谉 诪谉 讛讘砖专 讗砖专 转讝讘讞 讘注专讘 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讘拽专 讜讚诇诪讗 诇注讘讜专 注诇讬讜 讘砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜注砖讛

The Gemara responds. With regard to the prohibition against leaving over an offering on a Festival, another verse was written: 鈥淣either shall any of the flesh, which you sacrifice the first day at evening, remain all night until the morning鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:4). The Gemara asks: But perhaps the verse: 鈥淪hall not remain all night鈥 comes to teach that one who does so violates two prohibitions and a positive mitzva.

讗诇讗 讗转讬讗 诪讚讘专 诪讚讘专 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讬讞讜讙讜 诇讬 讘诪讚讘专 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讜诪谞讞讛 讛讙砖转诐 诇讬 讘诪讚讘专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讝讘讞讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讝讘讞讬诐

Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the claim that the source for a Festival peace-offering comes from a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渨ilderness鈥 stated here and the term: 鈥渨ilderness鈥 stated elsewhere. It is written here: 鈥淭hey shall make an offering to Me in the wilderness鈥 (Exodus聽5:1), and it is written there: 鈥淒id you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the wilderness, house of Israel?鈥 (Amos 5:25). Just as there it is referring to actual animal offerings, so too here, it is referring to animal offerings, not merely the celebration of a Festival.

讜诪讗讬 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪讚讘专讬 拽讘诇讛 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And in light of this verbal analogy, in what way is this halakha like mountains suspended by a hair? The Gemara answers: The textual evidence is not that strong, as generally one does not derive Torah matters from texts of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings. Since the prophets were not permitted to introduce new halakhot, as the Torah is the only authoritative source in that regard, this verbal analogy does not carry the same weight as a halakha derived from the Torah itself.

诪注讬诇讜转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讻讚转谞谉 讛砖诇讬讞 砖注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪注诇 诇讗 注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 砖诇讬讞 诪注诇

搂 The mishna taught that the details of the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But they are written in the Torah (Leviticus 5:14鈥16). Rami bar 岣ma said: This statement is necessary only for that which we learned in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 20a): With regard to an agent who performs his agency, e.g., when a homeowner sends someone to buy an object with consecrated money and the agent does as he was instructed, the homeowner has misused consecrated property and must bring an offering for the actions of the agent performed on his behalf. However, if the agent did not perform his agency, but in some way acted on his own account, the agent has misused consecrated property, and he is the one obligated to bring the offering.

讜讻讬 注砖讛 砖诇讬讞讜转讜 讗诪讗讬 诪注诇 讜讻讬 讝讛 讞讜讟讗 讜讝讛 诪转讞讬讬讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛

The Gemara explains: And when he performed his agency, why is the owner considered to have misused consecrated property? And is it possible that this one sins and that one is rendered liable? Since this halakha is counterintuitive, it is not apparent from the verses. This is what the mishna was referring to when it said that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诪注讬诇讛 讚讬诇驻讗 讞讟讗 讞讟讗 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 讛转诐 砖诇讜讞讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讻诪讜转讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇讜讞讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讻诪讜转讜

Rava said: And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps the transgression of misuse of consecrated property is different, as it is derived through a verbal analogy from the parallel term 鈥渟in鈥 (Leviticus 5:6) and 鈥渟in鈥 (Numbers 18:9), from the case of teruma: Just as there, with regard to teruma, the legal status of a person鈥檚 agent is like that of himself, and therefore the agent may separate teruma on behalf of the owner of the produce, so too here, with regard to misuse of consecrated property, the legal status of a person鈥檚 agent is like that of himself, which means that when the agent properly performs his agency the owner is liable.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 谞讝讻专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诇讗 谞讝讻专 砖诇讬讞 砖诇讬讞 诪注诇 砖诇讬讞 注谞讬讗 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛

Rather, Rava said: The mishna鈥檚 statement with regard to mountains is necessary only for that which is taught in a baraita: If, after he sent an agent to use a consecrated object, the homeowner remembered that it was a consecrated item and the agent did not remember, the agent has misused consecrated property despite the fact that he was merely performing his agency. This is because one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property only if he acted unwittingly. In this instance, what did the poor agent do? He simply performed his agency on behalf of the owner, and yet because the owner remembered about the consecrated object, the agent is liable. This is what the mishna is referring to when it says that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讜爪讬讗 诪注讜转 讛拽讚砖 诇讞讜诇讬谉

Rav Ashi said: And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps this is just as it is with regard to one who spends consecrated money for non-sacred purposes. Although this individual did not know that the money was consecrated, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering. Here too, once the owner canceled the agency upon realizing the money was consecrated, the agent unwittingly misused consecrated property, and therefore he is liable.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讻讚转谞谉 谞讟诇 讗讘谉 讗讜 拽讜专讛 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 诪注诇 谞转谞讛 诇讞讘讬专讜 讛讜讗 诪注诇 讜讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 诪注诇 诪讻讚讬 诪讬砖拽诇 砖拽诇讛 诪讛 诇讬 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诇讬 讞讘讬专讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛

Rather, Rav Ashi said: The mishna is necessary only for that which we learned in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 19b): If one picked up a consecrated stone or beam, he has not misused consecrated property merely by this action. However, if he gave it to another, he has misused consecrated property and the other person has not misused consecrated property. The Gemara analyzes this case: Since he picked it up, what difference is there to me if he keeps it, and what difference is there to me if he gives it to another? What is the basis for the distinction between the two cases? Rather, this is the case the mishna is referring to when it says that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讻讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty. What is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps it should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Here, this mishna is not referring to an ordinary person who picked up a consecrated stone for himself.

Scroll To Top